- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:51:48 -0700
- To: Benjamin Poulain <bpoulain@apple.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 31 October 2014 19:52:13 UTC
On Friday 2014-10-31 12:38 -0700, Benjamin Poulain wrote: > Currently, :nth-child(An+B of selector) has the same specificity has :nth-child() (0, 1, 0). > > Given the new definition of :nth-child(An+B of selector) must match selector on the current element, I believe it would make sense to include the specificity of the nested selector in the specificity of :nth-child() and :nth-last-child(). > > For example: > :nth-child(odd of #WebKit) > would have (1, 1, 0). It largely seems reasonable to me. Presumably it would work like the specificity of :matches() as described in http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors/#specificity Though it's a little bit interesting that: :nth-child(odd of p, .byline) would have specificity (0, 2, 0) for the #byline and (0, 1, 1) for the p. I guess that's probably ok, though. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
Received on Friday, 31 October 2014 19:52:13 UTC